The Sun. — London, England, 1838-05-25 00:00:00

peace. The Berlin decree was is s u ed, and then the y w ere informed what the measures of Napoleon were for the overthrow of the commercial prosperity of this country. The French and the Spanish navies had been annihilated by Lord Nelson ; but it was found that Napoleon was taking measures for the seizure of the fleet of Denmark. It was found that the troops of France were assembling on Hamburg, the neutrality of which had been violated. They had no ostensible object but to overrun Ostend, and then the navy of Denmark would have been in the power of Napoleon, who might have used it to intercept our commerce. Under these circumstances it seemed good to the British Government that they should send out a powerful •armament to invite the Danes to place their ships under our protection, till a peace should be concluded, or to bring them home to this country. Soon after that an embargo was laid on all Danish ships. The expedition sailed—the Danes refused the request that was made to them, and in the result the whole of their navy was fitted out in their own dockyards by Britislt sailors, and brought home to this country. It was to have been expected that our enemies would take advantage of that opportunity of raising a cry against Great Britain ; d accordingly all th e wor ld resoun d e d w ith cr i es o f our w a nt of faith. he Government of t h a t d a y p u t f or th a s t a teme n t of the motives by hich they were actu a t e d, an d w hi c h th e y deemed to be their justification. tn h at document was dated the 25th September 1807, and it was im. portant as showing under what circumstances British merchantmen were brought into peril, and as showing what was gained by this country which caused so much loss to those individuals. He dirt not wish to enter into the 'question at all of how far the Government of that day were justified or not, because he wished this to be received not as a party question, and he felt that he could not enter into any discussion of that statement, without exciting a party discussion, fereagn to the real merits of the case. Whatever might be the merits of that proceeding no one could be surprised that the Danes were displeased at it, and they stated that unless satisfaction was , ade, they wotild make reprisals on British property within their reach. ccordlngly they did confiscate British property to a considerable ount, which consisted of book debts, and the property of British bjects in Denmark. Goods and ships in the Baltic wer e Se i ze d . he confication of the petitioners' property was most undoubtedly ing to the act of the British Govern:s il ent, which act was in. nded to avert a great danger from Va . 's nation ; and it would, there. re, be monstrous to sa y that the loss ought to be sustained .3 , individuals. To him the claims of the petitioners seemed to be most equitable. All the authorities upon the subject of the w of nations were in favour of the claim. Grotius, in his Work " De Jure Belli," said that " those who gave occasion to reprisals were bound to make compensation to those who suffered from them."—(Hear, hear.) But that was not the only authority on which be relied. Mathieu, in the second book, eighth chapter, said that " the Sovereign oughtto compensate those of his subjects upon whom reprisals ,fell." He (Mr. C.) should he astonished if any gentleman would say that the country at large ought to participate in the advantages of the measure, and not also bear a part of the loss. If the loss of those sufferers could be attributed to any fault or negligence of their own, it would be a different thing; but at the time when their property was thus seized upon, they could have no reason to apprehend a war with Denmark. So far from this, it will be found, on reference to Parliamentary documents of that date, that no increase of pre rnium was required at the British Insurance Offices upon the goods and ships oft hose merchants. Indeed even the Proclamation of the Commanders of the British navy contained nothing to raise a suspicion that a war with Denmark was contemplated by the British Government.—(Hear.) So far from it, that proclamation stated that they came as friends and ex °teeters, not as enemies, and to prevent those who were disturbing the peace of Europe from turning the naval force of Denmark . egainst England ; and it also gave assurance that the British merchantmen might' continue to navigate the Baltic unmolested. But the case did not rest here. It should be remembered that the British Government seized and took possession of Danish pro j/erty, which ultimately produced the sum of I,3oo,oool.—(Hear, bear.) Under what pretence? Were we at war at that time? No. Had we arty right to make reprisals? Unquestionably not. He (Mr. Creswell) invited any Hon. alemnes to state any circumstance which `could justify the seizure of that Danish property, unless it was for the purpose of creating a fund out of which compensation might be made to the subjects of this country for anticipated reprisals of the Danes ? What complaint had been made to Denmark ? 'What wrong had Denmark committed? What justice had she denied ? (Hear, hear, hear.) And what right then had this country to sieze her property unless to make compensation . to British subjects who might suffer from the acts which the British Go. wernment thought proper for the w; tare of the empire ?—(Hear, hear.) In addition to the natural justice of the case, according to the law of nations, there was therefore a fund which could not be with equity applied to any other purpose than that to which he sought to apply a portion of it. To a certain extent that fund, or a substitute for it, bad already been so applied. On form r occasions the House hail granted compensation to those who lost their goods in Deumerk, or their book debts; but it was denied to those who hail lost their ships, and goods afloat in yes els. Was it not absurd that for property—part of the lading of a ship, which was landed—compensation should be granted, and that for the remainder of the lading of the same vessel, which was not landed, no eoinfiensatiori was to be showed ?—(llear.) It could nc tbe said that this application Caine too late, for it had he: ei decided by the House this Session, that compensation should be given to some of the sufferers ; but it had been suggested that there had been neeligence on the part of these shipowners; that they might have insured their property. If, however, they had a just claim upon the justice of the House, this was no answer to the claim. If two vessels came into c illision, true—the owners of the injured vessel Wight recover compensation by insuring her and her cargo ; but this was 'no answer to an action fir damages against the owners of the other vessel. So in the case of an aceon for damages by fire against the Hundred. These were the circumstances that had led to the petition, anti he had stated them as briefly as te,seible, and he trusted, when the House re-' membered this was a peril into which British subjects were brought, in order to gain a great national object, and avert a great national dan ger—when, moreover, a fund had been provided which was ample for the purposes—he trusted the House would go along with him in adopting the motion with which he should conclude—That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct the Commissioners to whom it was referred to examine the claims for losses siestaieed on account of book debts and goods on shore, in 1807 ; will examine the claims of those who sustained losses on ac count of the seizure of ships and cargoes by the Danish Government in the said year; and that the said COmmissioners report on such claims to the Lords Commissioners oi' l aieeMajesty's Treasury. Mr. BLACKETT, r ot Seconding the motion, sincerely hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would now complete :his act of justice which had fleets so worthily commenced by their predecessors in lß 34 , —Hear, heir.) lie was sure that there could be no wish on their part te act partially by the petitioners or unjust to any one, and he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what had already taken place, and ask if any of the grants hitherto made had been grudged by even the m , st rigid advocates of economy.—(Hear.) He believed that on th e coetrary they had given the greatest gratifica tion to the country, and he believed that to persevere in that course of equitable redress, would not only be very fair to the individual peti tioners, but give great satisfaction to the country at large.—`Hear.) The SOLICITOR.G%NIaiI AL sincerely regretted that his Hon, and Learned Friend did not, on 'he face of the notice he gave, state more distinctly what the motion was with which he intended to conclude his address to the House; because he (the Solicitor-General) in com mon with many of his friends around him did not know from the nature of the notice, coupled with the petition of the 9th of Febru iry, whether it was his intention to pray for a further com pensation to those having claims for book debts and claims on shore; or whether, as turned out to be the case, it was his intention to pray that the compensation might be extended to the case of ships, and cargoes on board ships. His Hon. Friend having now stated to the House that he confined himself to this latter position, it became his duty to state that to that proposition, however agreeable it might be to remunerate those who had suffered on that occasion, he could not-see any thing whatever, either in the precedents set with regard to other claims, or with regard to book debts, to give it the slightest sanction. His Hon. and Learned Friend had referred to certain passages from e celebrated writer on the subject. Now his Hon. Friend must know flee the distinction—whether founded in reason or not, it was not for them to inquire—that the dis tinction was universally recognized, that that which was a violation of the law of nations with respect to goods on shore and book debts, was not a violation of the law of nations with respect to the ships and cargoes on board. It was a universally recognized principle on which that coun try was in the habit of acting from the earliest times—and if they had acted wrongly, the sysem must be altered by someprospective enactment, but such was the principle on which they had invariably acted. Now, however that distinction might have had its origin, they could see for cible reasons why it might be justly and fairly maintained, because it was a usage universally observed—and he did not use the word in an exaggerated sense—to ensure ships, and to ensure the cargoes against all the perils not only of the sea, but of the King's enemies, to whirls they might be exposed. That practice was not only universal in ordinary cases, but had become universally the custom at. the time this transaction took place, and when the war had beets raging between France and this country for years. His Learned Friend had said that the Government ha.i already given compensation in the case of losses by book debts and goods on shore. Why did they do so? Because the act of the Danish Government in respect of those transactions was an act in violation of the law of nations. It was not consistent with the law of nations that the goods on shore at Copenhagen, or the book debts, should be confis cated because a war had broken out. Such a principle as that could not be applied to the present case, nor did his Learned Friend attempt to apply it. lie made his'application in the present instance upon totally distinct ground. He had stated that the reason he asked for compensa tion was, not that the Danish Government had done any thing which, by the usages of war, they were not justified in doing, but he called on the . House, in the year 1838, to give compensation, because they had em barked in an unlawful war. If compensation were to be given in such a case, he wished to know where it was to stop. If, in 1838, it was com petent for parties to put forward such claims for the first time, it was impossible to know where it would end. The claimants for the book debts and the goods on shore went upon a very different principle. They always put their claim upon the ground that it was not liable to the objection of the ship claimants. They claimed on the ground of a violation of the law of nations. His I earned Friend had stated his case shortly and clearly ; he had attempted to state his reply in the same manner; he had been short, perhaps he had not been clear, but he had endeavoured to he so. The ground upon which they resisted the claim was that these could not be put on the same ground as the other claim. • ants. Was it possible that, 31 years after a war had taken place, the House should go into an inquiry into the conduct of this country in en tering into that war ? If the House were to go into such an inquiry as to the Danish war,,where were they to stop ? Some might think that we were very wrong in entering into the war of 1756 ; others might complain of the beginning of the American war, and call for an inquiry, asking for compensation fir all those who had lost by the conduct of this country in entering into such wars. Uproot were wanted of the law of nations being in the state that he had put it, he would cite the conti nual treaties made between two nations at peace—that if a war should unhappily break out, no ship should be seized until six months after the declaration. These treaties would be rendered totally unne cessary if the law of nations provided for the case. He had shortly stated, the ground was clearly distinguishable from the case of the other claimants, and he trusted that he had shown the extreme inexpediency of entertaining the motion before the House. Mr. HUTT must do the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just Mt down the justice to say that he had not occupied the House unneces sarily with any argument; but more imbecile or futile arguments he had never heard the Hon. and Learned Gentleman put forth. The Learned Gentleman had stated that this was the first occasion on which the at tention of the House had been c shied to those claims which arose out of the con fiscationof goods. Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must recollect that on no less than three occasions had the House divided on it.—(Hear, bear.) [The great noise at the bar, occasioned by Members congregating to gether, and carrying on conversation, at length cause d several Hon. Members to call out "Ba r, bar."] The SPEAKER said, Gentlemen who have arrangements to make for the purpose of absenting themselves during the remainder of the evening, should make them in such a way as not to impede busine ss b eing i done by those who remain to perform t.—(Great cheering and laughter, Jee the if :h between twenty and thirty lion. Gentlemen e bar was cleared in a few seconds.) Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Soli_ led successfully one single argument ad ,ed Member opposite. There was one ma he Hon. and Learned SolicitoteGeneral to Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite f British goods and ships in t he Danish the hew of nations—it went to this, that 2, it was incumbent on this country to give were sufferers by it. He considered that distinction. He remembered that, on a for objectioes taken to compensation, on the liar to one in which a ship sailing on the mence of hostilities haying commenced in in the midst of which betwe( A‘, jumped to their seats, and the b. . C'S pit, Hurt resumed.—The c. , , -- --Cator: 4 Alp si tiad not combats - , . e . , ri. and Learned -ielriar4 wever, which a _ ..,, / t hairath,.. ' derstood. Tin ?"..,.. ::,./ ~"..- 4 1.3- f itit srf %1' the seizure of `", , .- f - hiilkkOztvt)Pljitct contrary to 1 liili seizult 44 inl taken ~ '._ . place, , ItorcpepiaPcgit ° those who we , uis\ - 4 , 7 4 4 ,,*, mit important iii..ii o , ,e k r n ,„ie,„,. on, there were obje -"bgrWd that the case was simil high seas was seized in consequ THE SUN, LONDON, Fntim 1, MAY 25, ins j: the meantime. He thought, howe, r, that this case was entirely distinct ' from any such parallel. The goods of the petition&s weiv seized in the Danish harbours at the time when thl.i Zountt y was supposed to be at peace with Denmark; in time of peace became the aggressor. There was, i.eletlsi, a calamitous war going on, in which the sufferers must bear the consequences ; but this case, as far as he understood it, was an excep tion. The British Consul was at the time resident in the Danish port, and Admiaal Gambier gave licenses to those vessas to sail. The British Government. however, upon sonic principle which he did not understand and did not think it necessary to discuss, thought proper to seize the Danish fleet, and carry off the vessels to England. It was even then affirmed that this was not a hostile measure, but one of protecticti and friendship. Upon this assurance the British merchants trading in the Baltic had relied. Relying uptim these assurances the British vessels sailed into the Danish harbours, and the acts of aggression Were corn mated, the vessels were seized and confiscated by an exiisperatell enemy. And, under these circumstances, would any Member maintain that the case was at all similar to that of a ship going from a distant port being carried away by a enemy, hostilities having in the meantime been com menced ? This country attacked Denmark without any declaration of war, without even pretending that any offence had been committed, only upon the plea:of State necessity. Was not this exactly the case which had been referred to by the celebrated writers on the international law, by whom it was laid down,'that in such a case the State was bound to make compensation to its subjects. The Solicitot-General had endeavoured to draw a distinction between ships or goods on board ships ;—and goods which had been transferred to the shore. No such distinction was to be found in the eminent writers—Vathel and Grotius—both of whom laid it down in express terms that the State is bound to make compensa tion to its subjects for wrongs arising from reprisals which have been provoked by the state.--(Hear, hear.) If the case went no further than this, lie (Mr. Hutt) submitted that the case of these claimants was fairly made oul ; but at the time when the seizures of British property was made, the British Government seized a far larger amount of Danish property in this country; and the proceeds of this property was for Some time applied to the compensation of these sufferer*. That fund was now dissipated, under the sanction of the British Legislature, and the claimants had no other fund to apply than the resources of the State. If it had been his (Mr. Hutt's) fate to be connected with a port I which suffered most grievously from these circumstances. It hail been ' said that these claimants came, after an interval of thirty years, to the House for compensation, but there had been no cessation of these claims. There had been no lathes by these parties. These claims had been repeatedly pressed upon the attention of the Government. In 15:34, compensation was made to-the book debtors. In 1837, another class of claims was recognised, and surety it was but shuffling to say that these parties came after an interval of thirty years. That was no reason for refusing justice. He was sure the House would, even at this distance of time, recognise these claims. The parties had appealed from one minister to another—they had waited tong and anxiously ; and for thirty years they had waited in vain. They now came to this House, which had so often redressed the wrongs of the injured, and he trusted that the representatives of Great Britain would not now with. hold them redress.—(Cheers ). ' " Mr. INGHAM said the Hon: Gentleman opposite had overlooked the principal claith on behalf of the shipowner. Every one must admit that in case of a war breaking out, although by the usage of nations goods might be seized, yet it was contrary to the usage of !matins, after the cessation of hostilities, to seize goods and book debts. The argument of ; the Hon. and Learned Member for Liverpool had been so powerfully and concisely put, that it must remain fresh in the mind of every one. This • was not a seizure of property on the breaking out of a war, hut it was • the case of a reprisal—(Hear)--of provocation on the part of the English Government for the purposes of the State.--(llear.) The case advocated by the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets two Sessions back, of the vessels seized by Spain in 1796, where the Government granted th,g sum of 200,0004, was of a smaller description to the pre sent. Therefore, not only was the case on the principles of justice per. fectly clear, but he thought his Hon. and Learned Friend had brough t forward an exact precedent to justify the course he was now pur suing. The only other objection that could be urged was on the score of revenue. But he would ask the Right lion. Gentleman opposite how was the revenue to be maintained except by extending protection to the commerce of the country?—(Hear, hear.) Nothing would tend so much to promote their financial prosperity as the Government coming forward on all occasions to indemnify the mecantile and maritime in terests whenever they were seized by foreign States. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was some thing necessary beyond a Government being liberal—it must be just also. Just, not only in the sense of giving countenance to reasonable claims, but inexorably just in resisting claims which appeared to it with out foundation, andiwhich could not be conceded without theintroduction of a principle of the most dangerous nature.—(Hear, hear, hear ) He would take the liberty of looking back at the history of this case, and he would bring before the House what the Govern ment had done, and he would justify them in the course they were now taking. Up to the year 1834 it was clear that the question had been made a matter of ineffectual struggle inlParliament. His Hon. Friend who sat below him and those who differed with him more broadly, would, on a full statement of the case, declare that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) showed no disinclination to state the grounds on which they had acted. In the year 1834 the question was brought under the con ideration of the House when Earl Spencer was Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that period undoubtedly the motion was specially directed to book debts ; true, the proposition which Lord Spencer un. dertook to examine involved all the three classes—(Hear, hear, hear) — namely, book debts, goods taken on shore, and goods on sea board. That, however, was upon the understanding that he expressly reserved to himself, as was stated in the Treasury Minutes, a full power &consi dering the cases. Upon the examination of the cases by the law dicers of the Crown, both his Learned Friends that were near him, and the civilians with whom they were associated, gave it as their distinct opinion, that with respect to the book debts and the goods taken on shore, that was a wrong sustained by British subjects contrary to the law, the declared law of nations ; but with respect to the wrong sus tained by the seizure of ships and cargoes, that was an ordinary conse quence of war ; and there was no violation of the law of nations in that case. Upon those opinions the Treasury affirmed that view of the case, and in 1833 a sum of 112,000/. was voted in satisfaction of the book debts, and in 1836 a sum of 78,3271. was voted under the second head. Thus the matter had rested till the commencement of the present year, when his lion. Friend the Member for Bridport brought forward a case which did nut differ from the case already refer red to in the Treasury Minute, alkiwing persons to come forward 'and claim within a certain time. , Certain parties made out a case to the satisfaction of the Member for Bridport, but they were excluded by the Treasury Minute. His Hon. Friend then stated among other things, although he could not state the sum that would be required, that a week should be given to the parties to put in their claim ; the time was given, and then came the present petition. The House would be surprised to hear that the vote come to upon the motion of the Hon. Member for Bridport had not stopped at 75,000/ , but that it had actually let in claims to the amount of 100,0001. That vote however admitted no new principle ; but let the House look to what was the principle they were now called upon to affirm. It was admitted by the partits that this seizure was not inconsistent with the law of nations. Yet they were called upon to affifm• that when hostili ties broke out, whatever might have been the wrongs of the subjects of this country, still they were bound to grant compensation to all parties who suffered from seizures made under the law Of nations. He called upon them to remember that the former resolution of the House did not contain the proposition before the House. On the contrary, this teas the first impression, which had not been formed before. Was this proposition to be affirmed on the ground of the war being unjust? If they affirmed that propositfon how much farther were they to go? Were they to investigate into the origin of every war ?—(Hear, hear.) If they affirmed that proposition in one war then they might be called upon to affirm it in every one. They might be called upon to award compensation to all who had suffered from the breaking out of the American war, or the revolutionary war. Suppose that several of those who were now petitioners before the House had been insured, and had been indeinnified by the insurers long ago, were they to give in demnity anew to those who had before received it ? Or were they to pay back to those insurers, who had paid the amount to the as sured upwards of thirty years ago? He would not use the argu ment of time as a bar to a claim which was otherwise just, or he would have used it as an argument against the book debts.—(Hear.) The investigation of those claims —ascertaining what was just and what was unjust—became infinitely more difficult in proportion as the time had run. If the case had occurred in the year 18”, evidencs might t hen be adduced, and he might have had the means of controverting it ; but when a case occurred in the year 1807 he contended the House ought nut to entertain the proposition, except on the most clear and un deniable grounds. He could not conclude without again endeavouring to show to the House in what a position all these cases were brought forward. Every person who had a claim, and every class of persons who had claims, naturally, by the influence which the constituent had over the representative the means of press. !ng on the House the fullest and strongest state meth, on his tehalf. On the contrary, those wha had to represent the public, as he did in the matter, had no sympathies of that description in their fa vour. Efforts were made on every side for the purpose of making out a case in favour of redress ; and on the other side there was nothing but the dry abstract reasoning of those who opposed it. If the House sanctioned this claim they would do that which was unexampled in the history of nations. If the House admitted the principle of doing this justice to their own subjects, (or similar reasons Foreign Powers would bring forward cases—they were ready enough to do it. The' Danish case was at first represented as a case quite of itself. No sooner was the Danish case brought forward than cases that were alleged to be similar were also brought forward. This ease was brought forward upon a new principle—it was a sliest dangerous principle, and he called upon the House to resist it, and if the House looked forward to the future, and wished to become fair and legi!irnate guardians of the public inte rest and the public purse, they wou'd now assist him in resisting the mo tion of the Hon. and Learned Mem'esr for Liverpool. Sir WALTER JAMES—Sir, I would not after the eloquent speech of my Honourable and Learned Friend, if I had not made myself diligently master of all the circumstances of the ogles, from which I am perfectly convinced that justice is on the side of the claimants—after the able and lucid statements of my Hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool—l need not occupy the House any length of time, but I wish to point out, as briefly as possible, how utterly futile is the distinction attempted to be made. Suppose the case of a ship going out to Denmark, the goods on board belonged to three differ ent persons, the goods of two of the parties are landed, and subsequently seized by the Danish Government. To those two parties compensation was granted, and I think most justly granted; but the property of the third party which was seized on board was not com pensated. The reason assigned is that the confiscation of those ships and goods was in conformity with the usages and practices of war. I deny this ; there was no war. There is this material fact—the Danes by their profession of the 17th of March, 1794, had pledged themselves to maintain the neutrality of the p,altic, and they had agreed that both parties should give six months notice of hostilities before the property of individuals should be liable to seizure. But this was not a case of war. It was a case of reprisal simply. I shall not trouble the House with quotations from Grotius, Matthieu, or Vattet, nor will I venture to tread upon such learned ground, which would be hazardous to so young a Member as I am. But this case is plain, that those people were deprived of their property fir the good of the whole nation. In 1807 they had committed an act of injustice towards Denmark, which nothing but the extreme circumstances of the case could justify. They had in their hands a large amount of Danish property, which was float ing on the Thames, or lying in the other ports of Greateritain. The proceeds of those seizures had been paid into the Treasury, and Mr. Perceval at the time made the distinct statement that that money had been paid into the Treasury, in order that it might be there to meet the demands of British merchants who had claims upon it.— (Cheers.) What was the result? •The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the ExChequer would correct him if he were wrong—he believed that air offer was made by the Danish Government of mutual restitution. Did they accept that offer or not ? They rejected it; and he would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, was it right or just, having refused those offers, that he should now adduce the claims of those who were justly entitled to them ? Might it not be asserted that they had acted fraudulently, if they now attempted to deprive those persons of their just claims ? He would only trouble the House with one farther remark. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General had stated that these parties might have protected themsel ve s by insurances. Now, he did not think that the policy would be worth much, when the property was destroyed by an event not contemplated in that policy. In conclusion, he trusted claTimhseoAf TthereoseßiNll-Euysed_GiEndNiEvißduAaLls.—was(liseoarri:y) that the Right Hon. Gentl eman wou l d see t h e j ust i ce o f conce di ng th e he could not assent to the proposition put forward by the Hon. Baronet opposite. The Hon. Baronet had a full right to attack th e op i n i ons of the l aw o ffi cers o f the Crown, and lie (the Attorney-General) felt honoured at entering into a contest with him. The Hon. baronet said th a t th ere was no distinction between those goods in ships which were seized and book. debts and goods seized on shore ; and unless he (the Attorney_ General) could make good that distinction, he would give up the case. Ile had given an opinion that those having claims for book.debts had a right to compensation, and upon that opinion the Government acted. He would now state the reasons upon which he had given that opinion. Those whose book.debts were seised came to the Gevernment and said, "the Danish Government has done what they had no right to dO—We call upon you to compel the Danish Government to do us justice—or do us justice yourself." The English Government did not comp-1 the Danish Government to do them justice, and therefore those whose book debts were seized had a clear right upon the English Government. It was allowed on all hands that it was contrary' to the law of nations to seize book debts. The only one instance on record was when Alexander the Great took Tyre—(Great laughter)—and that act was held up to general reprobation. But with respect to book debts it was said, you ought to compel the Danes to db us justice, for we have no opportunity of indemnifying ourselves from the misfortune which has befallen us. Now the Hon. and Learned Baronet was wrong when he said that the underwriters were not liable because that being one of the perils enumerated in the policy, they would clearly be liable. With regard therefore tit those *hose Wok debts end golds were seized, these two classes had 'clearly a right to recompense ; and he would remind the House that in 182.8, when Sir James Mackintosh, that great jurist, took the distinction that the owners of ships had no claims to compensation, he contended that that was in exact conformity to the law of nations, but that those whose goods and book debts were seized had been treated contrary to the law of nations, and therefore they had claims. Although this question had been brought forward from time to time until the present day, when his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Liverpool, brought forward the claims of those parties, no one had ventured to say that those whose ships and goods were seized were entitled to compensation. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Ilull, said there was no war, but he (the Attorney- General) would say there was. They were flagranice bello—they had blockaded Copenhagen, and it was after they had be mbarded their ships that the Danes did what they were justified in doing—they seized the British ships. He contended that the owners might have Saved themselves by insurance. It was unfair eft!). e ship-brokers and underwriters to come forward thirty years after t hese losses had been sustained, and ask the Government to lay a tax upon the public for their indemnity. They should have demanded a premium equal to the risk, and in all probabi. lity they did, but they lost in that adventure. It seemed to him that there was a broad and obvious distinction between those two descriptions of claims. It rested solely upon this, that the attack made upon Copen hagen was unjust ; hut admitting that such was the case, would that sanction the principle, that because the Government had acted unjustly, these per - sons were entitled to compensation. Neither in Iblrotius, Matth'eu, Vattel, or Puffendorf, was there any authority for such a proposition ; and on these grounds he most decidedly opposed the pro. position. .as Mr. CLAY wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of the Attorney-General, who said that this was the first occasion when these claims had been brought forward before the House; whereas two years ago he (Mr. Clay) had brought these claims before the House, and only failed by the small majority of eight. It was with deep regret that he (Mr. Clay) still found the Chancellor oft he Exchequer and the Govern. mint persevere in their refusal to recognize these claims, resting as they did upon the broadest grounds, as well of humanity as of justice. The opposition now offered to these claims was precisely the same as that which had been offered on former occasions. What was the nature of that opposition ? It was said,—" The claims which we have ad mitted, the book debts an 1 the goods on shore,"—(by the way when his Honourable Friend took credit for having conceded these claims, he (Mr. Clay) would remind the House that it was under the gentle compulsion of a strongly expressed opinion on the part of the House—it was said the seizure of these book debts and goods on shore was contrary to the law of nations ; but the seizure of the property for which indemnity is now claimed is in conformity with the law of na. tions, and if these claims are conceded a dangerous precedent would be established. He (Mr, Clay) much doubted, though he would not enter into authorities on the subject, whether the seizure of the book debts and goods on shore was so contrary to the law of nations, or at least so infinitely more opposed to the law of nations, than the seizure of ships in cargo. It was not in the smallest degree necessary in his csse that he (Mr. Clay) should make out that point. The Attorney-General had said that the seizure of the book debts and the goods on shore was con trary to the law of nations, and the British Government was entitled to call upon the Danish Government, upon the return of peace, to com pensate British subjects for the seizures so made. The British Govern ment failed in that, and therefore British subjects had a fair claim upon their own Governinent. Now, in tips argument, the Attorney-General seemed to have forgotten that the Danish Government were called upon for those very book debts, and goods on shore, and in the treaty of Kehl (as we understood) Denmark admitted the-right of indemnity to those British subjects whose book debts and goods on shore had been seized. That these claims had not been enforced against the Danish Government, was no answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of the danger of establishing a precedent of compensation for the consequences of g; ordinary warfare." Why, this warfare was wholly unparalleled, and he (Mr. Clay) hoped that no future page of British history would be polluted by the record of suds, an action.—(" Oh, oh," from the Oppo , sition.) As to the seizure of the Danish navy, he made no comment. It was difficult to enter into the feelings of a people under the pressure of a war such as that in which England was then engaged.—(Hear.) But it was the atrocious act of seizing 3'20 Danish merchantmen in our harbours upon the faith of treaties—it was this which provoked the Danish reprisals, and it was this to which he hoped the future annals of Britain would furnish no parallel.—(Bear, hear.) As to the insuring of the vessels, it was not the custom to insure merchantmen out and home ; it was the custom to insure the merchantmen for their homeward voyage when advius were received of their being homeward bound, and he (Mr. Clay) would state that vessels having gone out to the Baltic, and in telligence having been received of their being homeward bound, no in surance could he effected—no underwriter would take the risk.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was thought necessary in 1807 to make applies. tion to the Government with respect to a vessel bound to Stock holm, whether it was safe for a British vessel to proceed to that port? an the answer (we believe) was in the affirmative. The vessel sailed in September, and aerived at,Stockholm 20th November. On the Bth December she passed a ship of war, ran down without sup posing there was any danger, when the vessel boarded her, and she was taken into Copenhagen. This was the state of ordinary war.—(Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked about the hardship of the case. But was it an answer to a demand frequently urged—a demand, the justice of which had been acknowledged—was it an answer to say, that having refused it until the evidence was partly lost, that should be a seas,: for now refilling to investigate it ?—(Cries of question.) He was aware that at this hour Gentlemen wished to leave the House for the purpose of getting their dinners—(Loud laughter)—and he would not detain them longer than to say, that he had not heard any arguments from his Learned Friend below him, except those, to which he hoped he had offered something like an answer. He hoped, however, his friends near him might consider themselves the guardians of the public purse; they had done enough to satisfy the most conscientious scruples, and he hoped they would consider the claims ofjustice and humanity which were always paramount to any other.—(Cheers.) Mr. \VA R BURTON rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." lie wished to make a remark or two in reference to a statement made by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer as to what had fallen from him (Mr. Warburton) on a former debate. Being pressed to state what the amount might be he declined to give any information : but afterwards said that the parti cular claim to which he alluded might be from 70 to 80,000/. ; but in consequence of some additional facilities having been given fo ascertain the amount, it was found to be 100,0001. The whole argument urged against the motion was that we were in a state of war at the time, whereas we were in a state of peace; anal the Hon. Member for Cam_ bridge on a former occasion did not venture to say we were in a state of war ; he said there was an indication that something like a declaration of war was on foot. Now that appeared to him (Mr. Warburton) to be a state of peace.--(Cheers.) Mr. GOULBURN said, whether he had used the expressions im puted to him on a former occasion he could not distinctly say. It was not, however, a declaration of war preceding the seizure of vessels, on which Great Britain acted in these cases. An embargo on vessels in ports was the way in which Great Britain commenced hostilities, and if they admitted the principle that seizures made in this manner were seizures for which this country was afterwards to pay, they were deal. ing not with the case of Denmark, but with every nation.—(Cheers.) Sir F. TRENCH said the admirable statement of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets embraced the whole strength of the case. The question in this case was not whether the time had elapsed for these claims to be considered. No time should bar the cause of justice, and he hoped this day to see the cause of justice triumphant.—(Cheers ) Mr. WHITE gave his hearty support to the motion of the Member for Liverpool. Mr. CRESWELL then rose to reply. He should do so hi a very few words. He felt bound, in the first pl a ce, to notice what had been said by his friend the Solicitor-Ge nera l. H e h a d complained against him personally; now he could not but think that that complaint was totally without foundation. His friend had said he had been taken by surprise —that he had had no intimation by the not ice of motion what it was he asked. Now he (Mr. Cresswell) could not but think, when he had stated that it was his intention to draw the attention of the House to the petition, that he was not expecting too much in presuming that his Learned Friend had read it. Perhaps, however, his Learned Friend had read another petition, and fearing, that he might have done so, he would just read a ward or two of its prayer.—(Laughter.) It prayed for the compensation for goods afloat, stating also that compensation had been already given for the loss of book debts and goods on shore. That being the case, he was surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should have complained of him as he had. He would now come at once to the arguments'of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two Hen. assistants. It certainly was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exche quer to be just to the public, but it was much more his duty to be just to individuals; because, by injustice being done to an in dividual he might he ruined, whereas it would not be felt by a body.—(Cheers.) He was surprised at many of the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was surprised. to hear him say that the sum required was large. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by that, that when the sum was large, justice was not to be given.—(Cheers.) But where it could be obtained at a paltry price, then that it was to be rendered.—(Great cheering.) The arguments of the Attorneys General, that there was a distinction between the claim ants for goods ou shore and book debts, and those for goods afloat, was totally without foundation. If there were no distinction, which he posi tively asserted that there was not, then there was no resource left but for the House to be against the Government. And it would be bound to say to the Government—" If you do not make compensation, we will either compel you by force, or we will make compensation ourselves."--(Cheers.) It was not to be said by the Government, that if reprisals were made, then that they would wage war. Yet such were the ar g u m ent s that hail been made use of to-night, in order to avoid giving compensation. But on the other hand it was said that by the Articles of War the act that had been perpetrated was justifialale, He denied that there was war, and such being the case, the acts that had taken place were totally uncalled for, and Government was bound to make compensation. He again as serted that there was no war, and his friends who had built their argu. meets upon that supposition were mistaken. The Right Hon. Gentle. had said, suppose the goods were insured ? Now he woutrranswer him by supposing that they were not ; could justice in such a case be done to the underwriters without compensation being given them? It was no answer for a party to say that he had received the money from the underwriter, because in that case he would be the trustee for him. So also in the case of the collision of ships, it would be no answer to say, that the un derwriter had been paid. All he asked for the claimants was justice, which he trusted the House would give him by its vote that night. the House divided, whSetnratthigeerersapwpeeraeretdh_en ordered to withdraw, and For the Motion ... Against it SI Majority — 34 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should not take upon himself any responsibility in consequence of the vote which had just been come to by the House. DISQUALIFICATION OF HA WICK (ROXBURGH). Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose, in pursuance of his notice, to bring under the consideration of the House a subject which appeared to him as one of great importance, as touching not only the freedom of election, but as obstructing the salutary operation of those extended franchises which had lately been the pleasure of the House to grant to the people of Scotland. It had been his good fortune through life to enjoy the friendship of his relation, Lord Archibald Hamilton ; and with that Nobleman he had contributed to the extension of political privileges in Scotland. He d.d not now regret those efforts; but, on the contrary, rejoiced that the effect of Parliamentary Reform had been to grant a large extension of the people's rights. But at the same time he thought that the circumstances which it was now his painful duty to bring before the House required the prompt and immediate intervention of Parlia ment ; for if the evils complained of remained unredressed his fears were that the abuse of those privileges would bring the concessions he had alluded to into disrepute.—(Hear.) It might be asked why it was not a Scotch representative who brought forward this motion._His answer was, that he lived on the confines of Roxburghshire, that many of the partie, interested in it were his neighbours, some of them his friends; and that he felt that a gross outrage had been committed, and that not a moment should be lost in aprlying the proper remedy,—(Cheers.) Some Hon. Gentlemen might speak from indistinct rumour, but he could assert positively that the state of society in that neighbourhood had undergone a serious change in consevence of the circumstances which he was about to narrate—such a change as in his humble opinion rendered legislative interferenee itidisratiSahle. The principal of those facts re. ferred to the late election, which iodic Place Aug. ; 1 831, anti depended on sworn testimony. But first it would be necessary for Mini() state tO the House that at that: election the polling took place on the 3d and 4th of August, and that previous to the poll he (Sir J Graham) had presented a petition to that House from 600 freeholders of Roxburghshire. That petition stated that at a meeting, composed of six magistrates and 95 freeholders, a memorial was agreed to, and presentcd to the Lord Ad vocate, through the medium of the sheriff of the county, in which the petitioners stated their dread of injury to themselves and property, and stated that a militarl force would be absolutely necessary for the sup pression of violence. Whether there was any communication with the bailies of Ilawick he did not knrfw, but he knew that they were invited to attend the preliminary meeting. These magistrates objected to par. ticipate in any way in the maintenance of the peace, without the entire Charge and responsibility were relinquished to them. It was necessary for him to state here that these two officers were warm partisans—in deed, notoriously so.—(Hear.) The House *Mild also permit him to state that he should be most unwilling to say anything Which would be calculated to give pain to his Right Hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, of whose cordial kindness he had frequently partaken, but he found him. self bound to adhere to the course which a strong sense of duty imposed upon him. He would, therefore, say that, in holding the chairmanship of the Boxburghshire election it was impossible for him to dis charge the duty of the office without being more or less by the zeal—he would say the honest zeal which must necessa rily in some degree bias and influence his judgment. Thus much by way of preliminary. He would now proceed to the facts which charac. terised the proceedings of the Roxburgh election. He would endeavour to show that the conduct of the mob was brutal in the extreme, and he thought he could prove by evidence that it was organized for the purpose of overawing the freedom of election.—(Hear.) With re. spect to the violence which took place on the evening antecedent to the day of the poll, which was Wednesday, the 2d of August, he would re fer to the evidence of Mr. A. Berwick, who was examined as follows. This gentleman arrived at Hawick by the mail from Edinburgh the evening before the first day of the polling : Did you proceed to Hawick to give your vote there at the late election ?—Yes, from Edinburgh. On what day 7—Wednesday, the 2d of August That was the day before the poll ?--Yes. At what tithe did you arrive at Hawick 7—About nine o'clock. In the evening?—Yes. Were you, or any of your party, assaulted by the mob ?—I was. Were you the first party attacked by the mob 7—No. Who was the first party attacked?—Mr. M'Donald. Did you hear anything said by the mob at that time 7—Yes. What was it 7—There were several voices called out to " Swear him swear him!" After the mob had called out that, did any particular individual in the mob address you ?—Yes. What did he say to you 7—He asked me if I would swear I would not vote. What did you say to him ?—I said, " I will not swear." Could the persons in the mob round about you hear it ?—Yes. What step did they take ?—They began to tear my clothes, and kicked and jostled me, driving me always farther from the inn. Whilst they were performing these operations, did they utter any other expressions?—Yes. did they say P—One of them called out, " Down with the damned Tory, Berwick, and tramp him in the dirt." What place did you make for tried to regain the mail. Do you remember what took place upon your making that attempt —Yes. What w:,s it ?—There was one man came; I had my waterproof cloak in my hand ; I had lost my umbrella before; one man came up to me and raised his foot to give me a kick with all his force, but I saved myself with my hand and cloak, or I do not know what would have been the consequence; it was a most desperate blow. Did you still make towards the snail ?—Yes. Did you reach it ?—Yes. Did you get into it 2-1 got my head and shoulders in. Was any body in the mail P—Mr. Bull and another gentleman. Did you require them to assist you to get in, or did they do it ? They assisted me, both of them. In what way ?—One took one arm and the other the other, to draw me in. Did they succeed in drawing you in P—No. What prevented it ?—The mob outside hauled me ; I was very much exhausted, and nearly all my clothes were off at this time. Did they seize any particular part of your person ; your arm or your leg ?—No particular part ; jostling, and tearing away, and kicking my legs were all blue for weeks afterwards. From the kicks you received ?—Yes ; and one cut that will never leave me ; I had one cut across here (pointing to the side of his leg.) Was that done by the sole of a shoe P—By a shod shoe ; at least the surgeon thought so. You stated you were very much exhausted when you attempted to get into the mail; did that continue when )ou went towards the inn ?—Yes. Did any person at that time help you to get into the inn ?—Yes, there were two other men joined hiss's, and carried me through the mob to the kitchen door. He (Sir James Graham) felt that he was trespassing on the time of the House, but he had a painful duty to perform, and this evidence was ne cessary to show that extreme violence had been resorted to previously to the polling days for the purpose of overawing the electors. Then, with regard to the arrangement of the polling, it appeared that the booths were so constructed as to afford every access to those who voted for Mr. Scott, the unpopular candidate ; but in snaking their exit these voters had no protection from the mob, being compelled to go through the public market-place. This would be seen by the evidence of Robert Pattison, in question 2,055. After you had polled did anybody offer to go with you to see you safe through the crowd ?—Yes, James Ilalliburton. Did he go with you ?-1 - le turned inc round by the under end of the booth, and bade me run round to the front door of the inn. Were there any constables standing near the door ?—There were constables standing at the front door of the Tower; they almost filled it up with constables. When you were near the inn door, and the constables there, did the mob seize you ?—There was a mob close by the back of the inn, and they knoeked and pulled me round by this great crowd of people. Did the constables fly to protect you ?—No protection. What did the mob do then with you when they had got you in their power ?—They carried me along to Slittrigg Bridge-end. Did they do anything to you while carrying you along?—They kicked me with their feet, and stripped the clothes off—coat, waistcoat, and sark, and under sark , and my hat was knocked off when I was at the Tower Inn door. Did you endeavour to get away from him 1 1 —There was one voice cried, "Let him go," and another voice cried, " Hurl him over the bridge." Did you get away from them at last ?—Yes, I got away from them at last. Did you go into any house ?—I ran into a house. Whose house was it ? Walter Turnbull's, a stocking-maker. When you got into Mr. Turnbull's the mob were at the door; did you hide yourself any where ?—Yes. Where ?-1 hid myself below the bed. Did the mob come in ?—Yes, the mob came in. Did they search for you and find you ?—They searched for us and found us out. Did they compel you to come from under the bed ?—They struck us while I was below the bed. What was said ?—There was one .administered an oath, to make me swear that I would not vote again; I cannot recollect the words; life was left in me, and that was all. (Hear, hear.) He would read one more case, which was equally strong with the foregoing. It was the testimony of William Young, and was as follows : The night before thepolling began where were you; at home 2—Yes, at home. Where is your house?—At the east end of the town. During the night, that is, before twelve o'clock, did any persons come to your house Did any mob of persons come about your house ? —Yes. Did they do anything ?—Yes. What ?—Broke my windows. Were your children in the rooms at the time in bed 7—Yes. Were you obliged to remove them from the rooms 7—Yes. To the back of the house?—Off the window where the stones were 'coming in. After the mob went away, did you go anywhere ? After the mob went away I went to the Tower Inn. What time (lid you poll on the next day ?—A little after two o'clock. Were there any offers of protection made?—l heard no offers of pro tection made. Did you endeavour to leave the booth ?—Yes. Which end of the booth did you try to get out at ?—I asked the pro tection of the bailies to go to the eastern door first, and they told use to stop a little ; but they never said that they would give me any pro tection, What did you do 7—l went to the other door, the west door. Did you succeed in getting out at the west door ?—I went up to the west door, and was up two steps of the door of the Tower Inn. In consequence of not being able to get in what happened to you 7-- They catched me by the tails, and pulled me backwards. Who do you mean by they 7—The mob. Did any of the constables interfere to protect you 7—l did not notice any of them. When they had got possession of you what did they do with you ? They commenced pulling the clothes off my back. Where did they take you to first ?—To the end of the old bridge. When you were at the bridge did the mob do anything to you there? —The cry was, "throw him over the bridge." Did they do anything else 7—They asked me if I would ever go in and vote for the Tories again. Did you try to get away from the mob ?—Several times. What became of you afterwards; did you get away from them ? —I got into Alexander Mayer's house, the currier, by the Tower dyke. side. Now this evidence was sufficient to shew that the mob were in full pos. session of the town, and that the authority of the magistrates was entirely superseded.—(Hear, hear.) What was the account of the state of the town given by Major Napier ? Upon arriving at Hawick did you find a great crowd in the street ? Yes there was a great crowd. I believe the coach was going to the Tower Inn P—lt was. Could the coachman make his way to the Tower Inn ?—He could not. Why not 7—The mob prevented him. In what way did the mob prevent the coach going in ?—They got close round by the horses, so that it was impossible. What did the coachman do upon that?—He threw the reins on the horses' back, and left the coach. He said he could do nothing with them. Then you were left alone on The box ?—I was left alone. Did the coachman shortly afterwards return and mount the box?—Yes. Did he endeavour to drive into the inn yard ?—He wished to do so, but seeing it impossible he got down. Did you see the mob go to the coach itself ?—Yes, I did ; they walked • sirund it and looked in at the windows. Could you gather from any of the expressions they used whorh they were looking for ?—Yes, 1 could, it was Lord John Scott ; they wished to know whether he was in the coach or not. Was the mob a numerous one ?—Yes. Did you observe whether the people had any colours or any ribbons of aey kind ?—I only saw one colour, a blue ribbon, which I believe the greater part of them had. Did any of the crowd address you ?—Yes, they did. What did they say to you P—One of the crowd said to me, " lf you va lue your life for a minute do not attempt to come off the coach," or some words to that effect. Did you give any answer to that 7—My answer to that was, I hu d no thing to do i rith it, I was no elector, but going to this House. Was anything said or done upon that ?—Yes ; upon that a man said, " Really not ;" I said, " Really not ;" upon which he took a ribbon out of his coat and gave it me, and told me to put it into mine, which I did; he then said, "Now, your life is safe ;'' and the mob gave a cheer.—(Hear.) Did you see Lord John I did. Did you see him get out of the coach ?—No; I saw him the mo_ ment he was out ; he was on the steps. Were they able to take Lord John into the Tower P—No, that would be impossible; they took him at the back of the coach, and carried him into a baker's shop. Did it appear to you to be a violent mob P—l think I never saw such a mob, though it was a quiet snob, you may say ; they appeared to be worked up into a state of frenzy; I never expected Lord John Scott could have reached the baker's shop in a state of safety from the situation I was placed in. He would next read to thellousea Portion of the evideiice of theßev. CharkS Thomson, who was staying on a visit with Mr. Ballantine, at Hawick : Were you at Hawiek during the last election P—l was. I believe you ;sere staying at Mr. Ballantine's house P—During the election. Shortly 'ter the polling commenced was your attention called to the f occurred ?—lt was. ••;on 7—There was a great noise at the att,r having voted, were to - .dar place, and a great -ery long perk(' where I booth by any noise t 0... What attracted your atteo— eod Of the booth out which the vote,, come; the crowd cruphed towards that pare.._ deal of tumult and coneusitlt went na, an,: in no a number of individuals name running towards the house was, towards the bridge over a small stream, called . the Sliltrl b , they _went and looked down the street, and soon after that, or about the same time, they came rushing towards the bridge; a number of persons came towards me, and I saw an elderly man in the hands of the mob, who maltreated him very much. Before you saw the mob running in this way to the bridge did you observe any person upon the hustings, whom you took to be the bailie, get up to make an address to the mob ?—I think I did ; but I could not sadtiy make the assertion that I saw such a thing. ' Could you observe that the constables di.t anything during this con. fusion ?—I never observed them interfere in the slightest degree. . ...,... You say the first person -you saw maltreated on the first day of the polling was an elderly man ? Yes, I so guessed from his head being very bald. In what way was he maltreated ?—lle arrears d completely in the hands of the mob ; he appeared borne off his feet among their hands ; I could only see the upp?r part of his body clown thus far (the breast). They were pulling him about, and they seemed to me beating him with their fists ; and I saw one individual lay hold of a killed of long rail, which appeared to be torn off an outside stair close by, and strike over the heads of two or three at the head of tit's old gentleman. Did you observe any persons with blue colours mixing with the mob at times 2—A great many. Could you observe whether those persons• in Mr Elliott's colours were restraining the mob ?—They did not appear to me to be doing so. You have mentioned these two instances in the course of the clay ; did you observe other similar instances ?—I did observe the instance of another person If ho was very badly treated ; a violent crushing, and crowding, and tumult, took place near the polling booth ; numbers came running to this bridge to look down the Slittrigg, and by and bye a person was carried by the windows where I was looking out ; the upper part of his person I could see, the lower parr was concealed from me by the persons round him ; the upper part of his body was naked, and as he was passing his head fell back, and I witnessed the expression of his countenance, which I shall not forget soon.—(Bear, hear.) Such were the instances of violence resorted to. But, in addition to this, there were also cases of robbery. Mr. Berwick was robbed of 151. but the greater part of it was restored; and yet all this violence and ail these outrages were not only not repressed, but seemed even to be sanc tioned by the authorities It was distinctly proved on oath that both bellies wore the colours of one of the candidates on the day of polling. —(Hear, 'hear.) To make no mistake on this matter he would refer to the evidence of Lord John Scott, who proved that both Belie Good fellow and Bailie Wilson wore Elliot colours.—(Cheers.) But though Bailie Wilson wore the Elliot colours, he at the same time professed him self bound aCe".l ready to afford protection to all patties. The next evi_ deuce he should pro,. uce was that of the Rev. Angus Barton, with re spect to a speech made by : . I .. me brother of the Hon. Gent. opposite (Mr. n read the evidence. Ile begged to Elliot). The Right Hon. Gent. b.: as it ;:ould be seen in the evidence, repeat the case of Mark Turnbull, coat torn away up to which was to the effect that he had the lappetof he: . the waist—that alter going out of the railing his weiste,:.a t was torn off —that hat, coat, shirt, and neckerchief followed—and that he eves` naked down to the waist. The expressions used were of the most gross kinu , the man was beaten on the back and asked repeatedly, after each blow, whether he would ever vote in that way again. " They gave it me; 4 ' says the witness, " full drive with open loof." Another instance was that of a case in which Lord John Scott had been ill_treated. He es. caped with his life on two occasions, and, although he was not a man to be alarmed, it was not to be supposed that such perils could be escaped a third time. The Right Honourable Baronet then read the evidence of the Report, in which it was stated, among 'other matters, that the crowd said, " I was a rank Tory, and if I proceeded on any further to the poll the would 'strip me of my clothes and tear me all to pieces." There were other instances of men being threatened with being stripped of their clothes and dipped in the river, and in one case it was said by the party that if a person voted in such a manner they were determined it should not be without bloodshed.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet then read to the House some extracts of the published evidence of Mr. Craigie, the sub-sheriff of Roxburgh, as to the treatment of electors and the treatment of Lord John Scott, confirmatory of the other statements, among which it appeared that his Lordship could not leave the town in safety without protection, and that none of the magistrates or constables attempted to assist him. Ought it, he asked, to be allowed that such proceedings should take place? Was it safe—was it decent ? Yet they were sanctioned by the Committee, at which the Lord Advo. cate fur Scotland presided—(Cheers)—and his voice, although not in a special report, was given in its favour. Such proceedings were calcu lated to roll hack the tide of civilization; and if he knew his neigh bours, they would never go to vote at Hawick—(Hear)—so long as it continued. If continued, the electors would go armed, and the injuries and insults would be avenged in blood. This was not an ill advised opinion, but confirmed by the language of the. Judges of the land. In addition to what had been said b' Lord Cockburn, the following was the language of Lord Mackenzie with respect to the election of 1837. —(The Right Honourable Baronet here read the opinion of Lord Mackenzie.) These were the opinions of Lord Mackenzie. He (Sir J. Graham) should next call the attention of the House to the judgment of Lord Cockburn, who had been Solicitor-General of Scotland, under Lord Grey's Government;—" The chief aggravation of this case in my eyes, in place of being a palliation of it—its chief atrocity in my eyes arises from the circumstance of its being committed in the midst of an election —committed not merely in the midst of an election, but for election pur poses—for the purpose of obstructed the freedom of election. I know not what that freedom of election is which consists in this; but when I give my honest vote according to my own opinion I may be turned out on the streets of my native city in the, degrading plight alluded to—a situation so degrading that there are thousands of men—perhaps a majority of mankind—who would take the lives of their as sailants, and willingly lose their own rather than submit to it. That freedom of election is not the freedom of election that is meant by the law and constitution Of our country. We were told that such scenes were not uncommon in popular England. I don't admit that to be the fact. But it will be recollected that the scenes did disgrace the popular elections of England were so extraordinary, and lasted for such a time, that even independently of the recent change of the law, it amounted almost to an absolute certainty that some minor changes would have been introduced both to shorten the periods of election in that country, and multiply the places where votes were given, in order to put au end to them." He (Sir James Graham) would not attempt to impair any part of the force of these expressions—expressions of the highest autho rity in Scotland, untainted by party feeling, uninfluenced by anything save justice—by adding anything to them of his own. The Right Hon. Baronet then moved for leave to bring in a B 11 disqualifying Hawick from being a polling place for the county of Roxburgh, and enabling the Sheriff of that county to appoint other polling places in lieu thereof. Captain ELLIOT hoped for the indulgence of the House in his reply to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He was aware that the account of the ,assault on Lord John Scott was correct iu so far as that stones and dirt were flung at but not as Lord John Scott be. lieved himself in the statement he had made on the subject. The fact of the case was that the provocation to this assault was given by Lord J. Scott's servant, who struck at the people who were assembled there as he was leaving the inn yard with his master.—(Hear.) This he (Captain Elliot) said not from his own knowledy e, for he was in Bengal at the time, but from the best authorities he soul 1 collect in the neighbourhood during his residence there the whole summer. So much for 1832, in which year it had been admitted even before the Committee that there was no riot. He should pass therefore to 1835. 111'1835, the sheriff of the county refused to make over to the bailies of Hawick the charge of preserving the peace of the town, though they had represented to him that it would be much better for him to do so. They also urged on him that they could not answer for the result, unless he empowered them in the manlier they desired. They thought, naturally enough, that as all the authorities of the county, and even the sheriff himself, were partizans of the other side, it would be impossible to perserve the peace by their agency, arid that unless there eas a neutral power intro duced for the purpose, the consequences would be uecontrollable. This they mentioned to the sheriff. \V hat was his answer ? lie replied, "If you have any trouble or disturbance in your town I'll bring in the mill tary."—(Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Elliot) should remark that from the commencement of the election proceedings that threat of " bringing in the military" had been constantly held over Hawick.—(Hear, hear,) During this election there was a great deal of misconduct on the part of the populace he would allow—there were hootings, the windows of the Tory party were broken, and, what was more objectionable still, the friends of that party were ill_treated (as we understood the Hon. Gen. tleman). Now, he never had approved, nor would approve, in public or in private, of anything like violence or misconduct of this description, and no man could condemn it more strongly or r, gret it with a deeper regret than he did. But so it was. The Sheriff of the county took the charge of the peace on himself; then were there disturbances — but no bodily injury had been done to any one.—(Hear, hear, be: In the course of that day on which these disturbances occurred the sheriff, finding them go oil, placed himself in the windows of a Conser vative Committee-house—an unfortunate place for such a functionary at such a time, to say the thing least offensive ofit—and from thence put himself forward to read the Riot Act, the town being at the time free from riot. The snow lay thick on the ground—it was a tempting thing —some boys could not resist the temptation, and they gathered snow balls and made a cockshy of the sheriff.—(Great laughter and cheers from the Opposition Benches.) It was a highly improper act, he (Capt. Elliot) admitted—one that could be justified, however it might be exte nuated ; but all who heard him were once boys themselves—and they would remember that such a temptation was strong at that age—aye, even to full-grown men.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The election, then went on to its conclusion, and Lord John Scott was re. turned. On the evening of that day, however, when the entire town was quiet and the streets empty, the military were sent for, under the pretence, or for the purpose, of escorting a body of Conser vative votes out of it At that time there was not the slightest ap pearance of riot. On this circumstance being made known the chief Magistrates of the town went at once to the outskirts, and there met the Marquis of Lothian at the head of a small body of cavalry. They en treated of him to delay his march, it' only for five minutes, that they might first prepare the townspeople for the reception of the military. The Marquis consented, and the Magistrates despatched messengers on the moment to the town to say that the soldiers were Scoichmen, come to be biltetted on them 'for time night after a long march, and praying them to give them a kindly and hospitable reception and a hearty welcome. It was done. The soldiers were so well received that in their march through the slippery streets the men kept up the horses from falling, and the women strewed ashes tinder the animals' feet for the same purpose. Thus, by the judicious managelhent of that very Mr. Walter Wilson, so often alluded to by the Right Ho. pourable Baronet, this happy result was brought about. He (Captain Elliot) should next come to the late election. The Right Hon. Gen tleman had stated that previous to that election having taken place a body of electors, ninety-five in number, applied for a military force to protect them in the exercise of their franchise. Now, he (Capt. Elliot) would put it to any man, if the military were mentioned on the eve of an election in any town in Englend, whether it would not cause a serious riot?—(Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) Well, the military were ordered accordingly, and marched to a place called St. Boswell's-green, about twenty miles from Ilawick. On this being made known to them the bailies of that town declined to charge themselves with the preservation of its peace, unless the power re' moving the troops at their pleasure was placed in their hands. This, however, was not acceded to. As a great deal had been said about the constables and Mr. Bennett by the Right Hon. Baronet he, (Capt. Elliot) felt called on to make one or two observations on the subject. It was stated by the Right Hon Gentleman that a largebody of persons had as sembled for the purpose of assaulting Mr. Donald Horne, on his coming into the town — Sir J. GRAHAM—To kill him. Captain ELLIOT—WeII, to kill him, then ; and that there was no protection ft r him, and no preparation to prevent it. Now, what were the real facts of the case ? On that night Mr. Donald Horne and a large party of these poor voters, who required such protection, had a j 1- lineation together at the Tower Inn, and anything that occurred after wards was the result of that meeting. He (Captain Elliot) would ask any one whether it would not have been the more prudent course of the agent of the Conservative party to have give notice, if he meant to bring a large body of voters in that interest into the town, for the purpose of giving those charged with the preservation of the peace an opportunity of providing a sufficient force of constables to protect then.—(Loud cries of " No," from the Opposi. tion benches.) No such notice was, however, given ; but Mr. Donald Horne came into the town, pulled his hat over his eyes, mixed himself up with the crowd, and shouted aloud for the glorious victory of Gibson and Craig in Edinburgh. It was natural, under these circumstances, that Mr. Bennett should have been much irritated, and that the result complained of should ensue. With regard to these assaults, no man de precated them more than he (Captain El'iot) did ; "and the best proof's of his feeling to that effect was given in his vote on a question this Session), which he supported, though at the same time he heartily deprecated it, as the only thing calculated to protect time voter in the freedom of election. But with respect to these assaults, what was the case ? The case was ------- strictly this, that the system of coercion and intimidation—(Loud cheer. ing from the Opposition)—which was followed on the opposite side)-- (Laughter)—would create a similar feeling of violence all over England, it: it were longer persevered in. —(Cheers and laughter on the Opposition side of the House.) It carried to the same extent elsewhere as it bad. been in the county of Roxburgh—(Renewed cheers fro m the Opposi tion)—a return of that violence would be hut natural on the part of the lower orders of the people.—(Laughter tied cheers.) It was all very fin : for Honourable Gentlemen to cheer, but he would s ive an in and oi at, „ pot, arm expended a great deal of capital in its &It.' ce. •... . "e had it from a man 78 years of age, wholived thirty years improvement, that, bee...;tise he would not promise to vote fir the oi ea e " e ; dictate opposed to the liberal ;;:!erest, in the first instance six :1 11 previous to the election taking place, he was served otitis a notice to (11 11 r, and because he would not stay away from the hustings and refrain from giving his vote to the candidate of his choice, wh en the election caul vation on he was turned out. That was the reward he received for.hishonestas etic and incorruptibiLty.—(Hear.) But it was not a stray case -- fifty others a4well as him in the town of Hawick who c ould tell tite saline story. Now, with these facts before them, he would ask wheherba large manufacturing population like that of Hawick wer e greatly • 4:13 e condemned if, with a similar knowledge, they sympa thised with tlet fellow-countrymen and assisted them in their way agains t the politicta agents and satellitea of the Duke of Buccleuch ? Ne xt, with regard te the charge that the constables did not do their duty. In many cases it s might be that they did not; but it was not so in a ll cases. It viat . re were sworn that the Magistrates wore his (Captain Elliot's) c olours, and :._ the constables did the same. But the contrary was th e tact, althosts, he did not mean to say that those who made affidavit to that effect did not believe they were stating the truth. The Mag istrates wore ll° th colours of his—he was ready to depose to it if necessary ; e nd as for constables, on being sworn in they were informed that in case any of them mounted a colour of aetv kind he should be mulcted of all the salary he was entitled to receive. It was stated that the constableS were not impartially selected. How - was the fact? Fifty of Oleos were from the country, and the remainim; one hundred and fifty were nominated by the manufacturers of all political creeds, to whom list s I ad been expressly sent for the purpose by the Magistrates of the bo rough. His Honourable Opponent (the Honourable F. Scott), cramo - med AO doubt by others, 'had, at a public dinner g iven at Kels , roundly charged his (Captain 'Elliot's) brother (Lord .1;.! into) wit h p'anning, and concocting, and assisting in these riots ; end the Hon- Member Member for Selkirk shire had {made a similar assertion, equally' un founded. But the whole of these statements were utterly and entire) ' untrue, from heeinning to end —,(Hear.) The Hon. Membe r for Se:- kirk had stated that among the individuals who stimulated the mob were some who held the highest place in We nation ; and he charec ri Admiral Elliot, his (Captain Elliott's) other brother, with making a speech to excite the people to excesses. As to the latter charge, n il that Admiral Elliot had said was addressed to a few women whom he met at the corner of the street in favour of him ; and as to the charges against Lor.l Minto, that he had instigate-I the mob, the only ans wer which he could give it was to state, as he could do most unequivocally' that lie was not in the town et all during the first day—the mill 61 on which there was any disturbance allegedexcept for a quarter Of 551 hour before the close of the poll. The Hon. Member for Selkirk went ° n further to ask who prevented the constituted authorities from introducing. the military into the town ? If that was a crime Lord Minto certainly pleaded guilty to it; his only excuse being that at the time the town was in a state of perfect quiet. Admiral Elliot had not alone offered the' sheriff' to assist him in preserving the peace, but had actually by ext rtions succeeded in rescuing Lord John Scott from the pressure of the crowd On the arrival of the London mail. There never was at any one period a riot.— Cheers and laughter.) Whatever motives may have i n ' fluenced Some, Most certainly all those 6eults did not arise from a wuh to interfere with the freca. l persons who had changed n of election, but from a dislike of some ~.t he y politics, as the Right Hon. Baronet did, and the people of Carlisle eemed to estimate that change 'ts the people of Hawick did.—(Cheers.) _He was not going to inquire iot° the causes of that change, but this wag the reason oe the detestation of the people against Richard Young. lie did not justify the at tack, but the motive was not to interfere with the freedom of electio n : As to the polling booth, the sherif proposed to have' the polling i(t.: the house of the Tory party, but his voters would not go there, an thee the sheriff put the polling-booth close to the door of the Toriya Committee room. Now, as to the baffles being his partisans, ht w d ask, was the sheriff' of Roxburgh, who placed the booth as he ,Jl, stated, a partisan ? If the polling place be removed from Havi'ec-r; where is it to be ? There is no other place, because the sheriff ha totally altered the places of polling since the Reform Bill. Th e sher e j e was his relation and a private friend ; but in this case lie cou ld saY, e Lord deliver him from his friend.—(A laugh.) Lord Minto mw Lord Lothian near Hawick with some troopers. He begged Lord l O t '', hm first not to bring those men into the town before he had ti the civil power. Lord Lothian did not then bring the troops in, 3 Lord Minto Went into the town and entreated the p eo ple not to cans any riot, and they cheered him, and followed his advice. It was ungencronc: to attempt to connect his family with riots. lie was qu ite sure lie' John Scott was never afraid to go to the poll, although it had bee ,: so said ; 300 constables were on the spot, ready, if necessary, to P t y tech the voters, but they were not called on. He cou ld confide nl say that during the election the town of Hawick was much quieter th an that House had been during the night.—( A laugh.) The She gaav,e, a certificate that there was no obstruction on the second day ; that the electors were labouring under a moral obstruction from the ft.,_ of tile previous day. Nothing could be more r 4 gular or even their polling ai the diffaent hours of the day, and this proved that there irs,, no intimidation, and that the voters did not stay away. He (C'P t ` i l ai t Elliot) had, as was the case with most candidates at elections, a 'f eet , " corps de reserve" in readiness, and Mr. Scott must have polled At n t 7 at fifty more men before lie could have cau,,ht him—(Hear, hear) —s° ee t he must say that aonere palpably absurd story than this hail nevereo,!'"2'9 invented.—(lronical cheers from the Conservatives.) Out o f th persons who had signed the petition there were only 164 froend this Hawick district. A voter of the name of Drummond, who had sib had had petition, called upon him the other day, ai eclon asking him w ith done so, he said that he was not aware that It had anythiel,' t° orr ietY hot Ilawick, but was under the impression that it reta:red to the P r ' un der of establishing a polling place at Melrose, and tha t lieb,:d sign ed it o ught a desire to see that town made a polling place. Now Ma's Scott sign these certainly to have first explained to those who m he asked to The been what their object was, and very little a ttention ou g ht t. been paid to any petition signed in such a manner as this had been. t crime of the electors'of Hawick was not that they had torn off the at i tails of their opponents and put them in the river, which, by the by e ' , was not knee-deep after all.—(A, laugh.) One of the Judges, an d e ve , the Right Honourable Barobet himself, had much mistaken the nun" ber of those who were put into the river, as it had never been pre tended by any other persons that more than two or three indi viduals were thrown into it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But the real crime of the electors of Hawick was that they were a people full of intelligence, honesty, and political independence—(lronical cheers trot ° the Conservatives)- - and that was the reason why it was now thoug ht necessary to apply for an ex post facto law to punish those who dared t c ° l resist the mandates of the satellites of the g r e at Buccleucli.—(Hear, a n , laughter from the Conservatives.) The utmost had been done to midate and corrupt them, but they were staunch; and the Conservatives felt they could no longer find among them any materials to AVOSIC and therefore were compelled to come to the House of Commons throttf; the agency of the Right Hon. Baronet to effs'ct their object. throe h e Hon. Gentleman then concluded by stating that this was a mere path motion, that he looked upon it as such, and should give a motion w' o. such an aim and object as this his most strenuous and determined °PP sition.—(Hear.) oea te Mr. PRINGLE was understood to say that if the Lord Ada _ had performed his duty as he ought to have done he wou ld have tak ; the matter up in the first instance, for he ought to know that if se re things were allowed to pass over without notice this wa s not the ' occurrence of the kind that they were likely to hear of.—(Hear.) which Mr. IIORSMAN rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide," „ts, prevented the Honourable Member from proceeding for some morae Ile said this was not only a new but an important and A con stitu u t ,11)le question, and if they adopted the proposition of the Right H ono Baronet he could not help thinking that they would be establisi n fi l g et dangerous precedent.— (Cries of " Oh, oh.") At all events th ey °- ies who were well informed on the subject. Not only not to go to - a division without hearing the opinions of those P 7 a , new one, but the -proposition of the Right Honourable Baronet wrvidce that been never heard of before..:-(Renewed cries of" Oh, oh,' " P se was divide.") The object the Right Honourable Baronet had in vise rots to have the polling place removed front Hawick, and simply becaus only had ensued in consequence of the introduction of the military, notail when there was no occasion for their presence, but in fact be Un she d ilistrbance began. /le feared that if the precedent were once est 3h : re ol, they would soon have all other elections placed under military O n eo oe and this he thought he should be able to show would he t ° , 1 , 9 5 f On stitutional iproceeding. On what was this motion founded ? %' bu t it the evidence taken before the Roxburgh Election Committee; dircao was the questioreive should not be forgotten that the echoic' of that evidence pr oceed ot her, partisans, who were unduly biassed in favour of one party ter th e testi' and whose statements, therefore, were characterised by ex 3 gg er d 3 The Hon. Gentleman complained that the Right Hon. Baronet had 5 it dealt fairly with the evidence, and that he had used it only s° farrioesr, would serve the purpose which he had in view. He had made it 'tters from the manner in which he had described the evidence of Mr' ;- son, that lie was a much injured person. sea ev i- Sir JAMES Glt A 11A7,1 had stated nothing, but merely rea d deuce (vim the Report.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) n ifc4 Mr. HO 'ISM AN said it was of that he complained. It wa s l e e 3, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had read the whole of the evi"ei3eceo 3 (Cheers from are Opposition benches)—and that be had onlY g . pas" part of it. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read severse'e;,ere sages from the evidence, to show that the Right H on . Baronet ha.' to stated the facts, and that the riots were not of so serious a nature' 'tot call for the presence of the military. - He then adverted to the rio t ' ers at (secured in Carlisle in the years 1821 and 1827. The di s turba n , e t he Hawick werAnot to be compared with those riots, and yet not ois1 f ur Right Hon. ientleman, but the Right Hon. B aron et the M ei° cod, Tamworth, deprecated the introduction of the military at Carl e isi e e w , ot contended that such a course was an interference with th e fr essitY' election, and only to be justified by extreme and indispensable neictrr- a te / The Hon. Member proceeded to address the House amid st re cled and general calls of " Divide" and " Question," and c onch' moving that the debate be adjourned to this day. The SPEAKER having put the question, efoli se e ' Sir J. GRAHAM feared the subject had nearly exhaus ted the lo de" but he hoped that the Hot, Member would not per s evere in hi' of adjournment. a ( ow Lord J. RUSSELL said that he believed his Honourable Friend (tope Member for Cockermouth) had nearly concluded his spee ch :one "',, t hoped the House would allow him to conclude it; but eveneted ding. House disposed to hear his Hon. Friend, it *mild be recolle'iu frie very grave charges had been made against his Right Honotir3l:) estrous to; the Lord Advocate, to which charges he would of course be dlO jive t reply. At this late hour the House might not be disposed ~e s e th patient hearing, and lie thought it might perhaps be the best e°" they should adjourn the debate. 11,e SPEAER having put the question, PP ee ' The Gallery K was cleared for a division,lbut no division o°l' and the debate was adjourned to this day. BUSINESS OF THE, HOUSE. . en ee of ti " Lord J. RUSSELL said that it might be for the colvreeh order the ° l;ill House that he should state what his 'intentions were as er3 tion ert the business. The House was aw;.re that the Irish C °ll. , a djourn q stood for to-morrow (this day), hut the debate which had b ee : l- , erong,.Ab would probably continue so as to prevent that question he'l,"ediaurn'- on. What lie then proposed was this—to go on with th debate this day, and to postpone the Corporation question untd cus tire• He also proposed that the House should sit on P Tuesday ; on which day he proposed that they should proceed with that , r e _ e ,, the and Ot iort Hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot) was disposed to proceed with bes e t ii on respecting slavery, it would be competent for him to bring h ere' Tuesday, alth o u g h ( as we un d ers t oo d t h e N o ble Lord) , it had tofore been usual for the House to sit on that day. lIULL ELECTION COMMITTEE. vi eene e Mr. ORMSBY GORE, jun., mo v ed that the minu t e s of e taken before the Hull Election Committee should be p rinted. Motion agreed to. 'The House then adjourned at half-past twelve o'cloc k. - en ' ?.l1) _,........_ RANDONI RECOLLECTIONS OF THE LORDS it'', . ~, e COMMONS.—A new Series of the work under this title has Ju" , by A forth, and like the former is full oficharacteristic sketches, penile' ~g man, wh o from pe r sonal observation has had an opportunity of collect. 0 materials which, without ilknature or a desire to otfend, into a very agreeable and amusing form. All those leading men, Wh ° ,„01 omitted in the former volumes, have now no longer reason to coo" _ 01 their having been forgotten, while those who were ignorant of tb e . c P t c ,f euliarities of men whose senatorial labours were constantly the toP i cor ,„ conversation, have ample means of gratifying tilt it curiosity. T ) ,.. e ic s, mer volumes obtained great popularity, and in the present new .c r the author has fully sustained his claim to a more extended patronag_r Considerable emigration is taking place this year he has thrwocsrre from the Scottish Highlands to the new Australian colonies.